These "Hotfixes" are a no, no.

25 Blood Elf Priest
250
02/19/2011 12:40 PMPosted by Krulgor
I think the dev team is on a hard learning curve.


People assume they have godlike abilities to predict every single thing for every sort of interaction which is silly. Given Blizz's own mild QQ <laughs> about PTR sample size, it stands to reason that the new stuff they designed in for purposes of balancing didn't really get fully stretched out either during testing.

So everyone, players and devs alike, is figuring stuff out.
85 Undead Priest
2465
# While there was feedback from the PTR on what is broken, overpowered, underpowered, etc. there simply wasn't enough data and real world proof for us to make changes. Forum posts always make a lot of noise. It's difficult to separate the seed from the chaff. Yes, it turned out a number of reports proved to be accurate once the 4.0.6's hit the masses and we were able to get a sample size that showed us what needed adjusting.



It's math. I don't understand the need for real world data. If aimed shot does RND(1-10)*100+AP+blah+RND(gimmemore), then by god, that is what it is going to be, no?

Now, there might be more involved, I don't know, but this game is all about statistics and probability. How can a simulator or spreadsheet of some sort not give the devs any idea of how it is going to be?

Can someone explain this to me?
25 Blood Elf Priest
250
02/19/2011 11:38 AMPosted by Phatbdin
If there were not enough feedback, then make the PTR period longer.


You need to make it larger, not longer. In a case like this, the same sample size will generate pretty much the same results over time since players generally play the way they play.

You only move the results after a certain point by adding to the sample, not making the testing time longer.
85 Blood Elf Paladin
9800
02/18/2011 8:48 PMPosted by Bashiok
Fourth point really struck home with all of the designers, and that's that they also have an obligation to not use the live realms as a balancing laboratory. That while the changes being made have seemed very quick and sporadic at times, that there is thought and planning going in to them, and they are consciously avoiding throwing out changes and seeing what happens. While some changes have been implemented and then reverted, it's not because a lot of thought and effort didn't go into them, but that simply they didn't work as intended.



Rubbish.

Testing a dispellable version of Master's Call should have been a PTR excercise. Its a completely different ability when it becomes dispellable.

In addition, Aimed Shot should have come out of the PTR at the desired level, rather than it going up and down in the space of days.

You sing the song of the designers if you want to, but if they couldnt tell how much damage Aimed Shot was going to do when it went live, then they are clueless and people have every right to be frustrated.

Getting it wrong by 5-10%, fine. But going from 150%, to 200%, back to 160% is infact using the Live realms as a testing realm.

Granting ALL hunters ~2k AP in addition to the 600 or so they already get from Aspect of the Hawk, and then factor in talented bonus of an extra 30%? Do you think giving a dps class 2.5k AP without testing is consistent with your comments?

Yeah. I look forward to the hotfix on the back of these ones that reverts the AP change, leaves Aimed Shot in the Bin, and maybe returns Eyes of the Beast to compensate.
Edited by Stiffshanks on 2/19/2011 12:59 PM PST
25 Blood Elf Priest
250
02/19/2011 12:47 PMPosted by Azzurathe
# While there was feedback from the PTR on what is broken, overpowered, underpowered, etc. there simply wasn't enough data and real world proof for us to make changes. Forum posts always make a lot of noise. It's difficult to separate the seed from the chaff. Yes, it turned out a number of reports proved to be accurate once the 4.0.6's hit the masses and we were able to get a sample size that showed us what needed adjusting.



It's math. I don't understand the need for real world data. If aimed shot does RND(1-10)*100+AP+blah+RND(gimmemore), then by god, that is what it is going to be, no?

Now, there might be more involved, I don't know, but this game is all about statistics and probability. How can a simulator or spreadsheet of some sort not give the devs any idea of how it is going to be?

Can someone explain this to me?


I cant speak for hunters so won't even try. Generally, there's a certain amount of RNG associated with class mechanics, stuff like crit chance and in my own class, shadow orbs (highly subject to RNG and damage buffs likewise). There are mechanics, talents and spells that only come into play in particular situations. The interaction of those things and more with the easily calculable stuff you mention is often what causes problems. Plus, people find ways to use abilities that no one ever imagined. Simulators and spreadsheets can approximate probabilities but being approximate is not always good enough. And simulators and spreadsheets while fine for calculating capability for a single class or player aren't sophisticated enough to model the entire environment and interaction with every other class.

EDIT: What Keyvne said in a more concise way than I managed (with an example no less).
Edited by Moanshadow on 2/19/2011 1:01 PM PST
85 Draenei Paladin
10295
Speaking as a long time player who does remember the agony of 5 month PTR patches to get things fixed.....

I would rather have a 1, 2 even three month patch with more testing encouraged from players and internal testing by Blizzard, then have a 2 week PTR and then suffer a month of whiplash hotfixes.

I'm not saying the old model is any more perfect then the current, but it gave me, and a few friends, more trust that the patch that was coming out had been tested and the bugs worked out.
85 Tauren Druid
5430
There's a lot more to testing than seeing how much damage something does, it's more along the line of how it works in a group environment or vs, with other classes, and how it affects the entire balance, not just the 1 class that was changed. this was previously mentioned multiple times. And if PTR is almost empty because everyone is playing new content, the patch will never be well tested. That's assuming the people that are on the PTR are even giving any feedback. One thing they should do is limit PTR to classes you actually have at max level so the people testing at least have an idea of what they are testing and have something to compare it to.
85 Human Paladin
9400
It's balanced to the point of almost being purely homogenenous.


And that's what I've been complaining about. Class just doesn't seem to matter anymore.
25 Blood Elf Priest
250
02/19/2011 1:16 PMPosted by Bomm
There's a lot more to testing than seeing how much damage something does, it's more along the line of how it works in a group environment or vs, with other classes, and how it affects the entire balance, not just the 1 class that was changed. this was previously mentioned multiple times. And if PTR is almost empty because everyone is playing new content, the patch will never be well tested. That's assuming the people that are on the PTR are even giving any feedback. One thing they should do is limit PTR to classes you actually have at max level so the people testing at least have an idea of what they are testing and have something to compare it to.


There's something to the notion of a class of expert (85) testers. Keep in mind a few things:

1. This is an even smaller sample than what they use now.
2. 85's aren't likely to provide any viable feedback for anything other than level 85.
3. 85's won't test lower level content.

There are a lot of players below 85 and they can't be ignored. You may think their concerns or quality of game play isn't important but if Blizz wants to continue to grow the game, they'll not rely strictly on max level players to keep them informed.
85 Undead Warlock
10240

I know a lot of us remember the old days where classes would sit without changes for months, in some cases years for specific mechanics.


One thing I would like to add in regards to this specific blue comment as well is that do you really think you could get away with that nowadays? People's options were much more limited as far as MMO's back then. People's options are far more open now, and will be even more so when your next big competitor comes out. Due to that fact, the level of customer satisfaction needs to substantially improve if your company doesn't wanna get bumped down for the next big newcomer. I'm going to be respectful enough not to name the specific competitor here, but you know who I'm talking about.

There are a lot of people who wouldn't even have looked at that game if it weren't for how frustrated they were with this one. You kind of shot yourselves in the foot with this patch here. I know personally if I wasn't so frustrated with this whole situation, I would've been perfectly content focusing on WOW. However I am willing to take a look at something new where they might treat us with a little more respect, listen a little better, and not try to point the finger at anyone but themselves when something goes horribly wrong. Not to say I'm leaving WOW, but just pointing out the direction I've taken because of this patch.
85 Undead Warlock
10240
02/19/2011 12:45 PMPosted by Moanshadow
I think the dev team is on a hard learning curve.


People assume they have godlike abilities to predict every single thing for every sort of interaction which is silly. Given Blizz's own mild QQ <laughs> about PTR sample size, it stands to reason that the new stuff they designed in for purposes of balancing didn't really get fully stretched out either during testing.

So everyone, players and devs alike, is figuring stuff out.


I don't see any point in this post? As far as the learning curve, yes some things are hard to predict. Others were posted dozens and dozens of times on the PTR forums as bugs, and were easily reproducible by their development. However much of those issues were completely ignored and went live. That's not a "learning curve", that's failing to do their job.

Also, if they are still "figuring stuff out" as far as how to effectively test a patch before it goes live after having WOW out for all these years, it's time to replace some people. There were plenty of people on the test realms and plenty more than enough feedback on the PTR forums to fix far more issues than they had. They squandered that opportunity however.

Here are undisputable facts:

1) They let this patch go live far sooner than they should have.

2) They ignored the majority of our legitimate issues and concerns that were repeatedly posted on the PTR. It's one thing to overlook one thread mentioning an issue. It's a whole different story when they ignore 30-40 threads mentioning the same issue over and over.

3) They lost a lot of their customers because of it.

4) Their companies reputation took a huge it.
90 Goblin Priest
6320
Looks like it's time to roll a holy priest...
40 Human Warlock
340
hunters aimed shot is still 2.9 ... seems you guys keep dodging to answer this one. are you going to leave it at 2.9 because its too strong or are you going to put it to 2.4 like it said in the patch notes.
25 Blood Elf Priest
250
I don't see any point in this post? As far as the learning curve, yes some things are hard to predict. Others were posted dozens and dozens of times on the PTR forums as bugs, and were easily reproducible by their development. However much of those issues were completely ignored and went live. That's not a "learning curve", that's failing to do their job.


The thread is in part about why hot fixes are happening frequently. So speculating as to why this might be happening was the point. Your mileage may vary. If I went around posting messages about pointless posts, I wouldn't do anything else.

I think you make some good points. So there. I partially agree with you. Deal with it.
85 Tauren Druid
5430
02/19/2011 1:24 PMPosted by Moanshadow
There's a lot more to testing than seeing how much damage something does, it's more along the line of how it works in a group environment or vs, with other classes, and how it affects the entire balance, not just the 1 class that was changed. this was previously mentioned multiple times. And if PTR is almost empty because everyone is playing new content, the patch will never be well tested. That's assuming the people that are on the PTR are even giving any feedback. One thing they should do is limit PTR to classes you actually have at max level so the people testing at least have an idea of what they are testing and have something to compare it to.


There's something to the notion of a class of expert (85) testers. Keep in mind a few things:

1. This is an even smaller sample than what they use now.
2. 85's aren't likely to provide any viable feedback for anything other than level 85.
3. 85's won't test lower level content.

There are a lot of players below 85 and they can't be ignored. You may think their concerns or quality of game play isn't important but if Blizz wants to continue to grow the game, they'll not rely strictly on max level players to keep them informed.


let me clarify,

One thing they should do is limit PTR premade characters you can copy to classes you actually have at max level so the people testing at least have an idea of what they are testing and have something to compare it to

I was in no way talking about lower level content, which is not really close to balanced, unlike 85 content.
25 Blood Elf Priest
250
One thing they should do is limit PTR premade characters you can copy to classes you actually have at max level so the people testing at least have an idea of what they are testing and have something to compare it to


Got it. I wasn't really clear either.

I have a lot of alts and changes made for 85 sometimes make low levels very difficult to play in LFD. Balanced or not, there's are boundaries to be respected between making low-level content too easy for new players and too difficult to be fun.
85 Tauren Druid
5430
02/19/2011 2:03 PMPosted by Moanshadow
One thing they should do is limit PTR premade characters you can copy to classes you actually have at max level so the people testing at least have an idea of what they are testing and have something to compare it to


Got it. I wasn't really clear either.

I have a lot of alts and changes made for 85 sometimes make low levels very difficult to play in LFD. Balanced or not, there's are boundaries to be respected between making low-level content too easy for new players and too difficult to be fun.


that's not even considering the horrible pvp balance at low levels, I leveled my alliance rogue during 4.0.1 and it was kind of ridiculous, even 4.0.3 in higher end brackets they were still rather op, and I don't mean just ambush+evis almost insta kill every time, running around and hemo spamming was just as bad and they recently buffed it if i recall properly.
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]